View Full Version : Scotland would have had strongest currency in Europe
Duke Malcolm
09-13-2005, 18:30
Auntie Provides :
Papers reveal oil fears over SNP
A secret Whitehall dossier written 30 years ago has revealed that Labour ministers were concerned about the case for Scottish independence.
The information was kept confidential at the time to keep Nationalism at bay.
The paper was obtained by the Scottish National Party under freedom of information legislation.
Written by a leading government economist in 1974, it sets out how oil would have given Scotland one of the strongest currencies in Europe.
The report by Professor Gavin McCrone also stated that Scotland would have had "embarrassingly" large tax surpluses.
'Industrial desert'
But Dr McCrone's projections for independence were kept secret because of Labour's fears about a surge in SNP popularity.
The report shows officials advising ministers about how to take "the wind out of the SNP sails".
"This is a fundamental lie that the people of Scotland have been spun for 30 years" -Kenny MacAskill, SNP
Kenny MacAskill, of the Scottish National Party, said the report was proof of 30 years of official lies, cover-ups and betrayal.
He added that it showed how much Scotland would have benefited from independence and oil.
He said that in the 30 years since the report, Scotland had suffered low economic growth and manufacturing decline while at the same time oil wealth had "transformed" Canadian provinces and Arabian shiekdoms.
"Some have chosen when they've discovered oil to make the desert bloom and the tragedy was that in 30 years in some areas of Scotland, the UK Government has created an industrial desert," he said.
Service cuts
Mr MacAskill insisted that, with prices rising rapidly, oil was now "on the agenda" and he claimed an independent Scotland "would never be richer".
He added: "I would first of all like to have an apology from the UK Government for lying to us.
"We're not talking about something that's negligible.
"This is a fundamental lie that the people of Scotland have been spun for 30 years - that we were too wee, we couldn't do it, that the oil was going to run out - when they knew for 30 years that Scotland was sitting on a bountiful presence that would have transformed our economy for the better."
However Scottish Secretary Alistair Darling dismissed the document.
He said: "This is typical of the Nationalists, looking back to the past. This document is 30 years old.
"The fact is that all recent figures show an independent Scotland would have a fiscal deficit even if oil revenues are taken into account. That would mean cuts in public services."
Arrrgh. I friggin' knew it.
Kagemusha
09-13-2005, 18:42
You should break of from GB if they are only taking advantage of you.Then you guys can join in a nordic union with the scandinavian Countries. ~;)
Taffy_is_a_Taff
09-13-2005, 18:43
It's fun to see that the SNP were right all along.
However, I'm sure the revenues are now such that the argument would not work.
At this point, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and tell them to have a try. It's a good time to get in the oil market, what with the prices being so high.
That will never happen, realistically. "Shaken" is an extreme understatement.
Duke Malcolm
09-13-2005, 19:44
It will happen when I become Prim Minister...
If Gordon Brown becomes Prime Minister, then the union would seem less biased to foreigners, since the Head Honcho would be 100% Scottish, unlike Blair, who was born in Edinburgh, raised in England, and completed his education in Edinburgh again, then left to England again. Governance only seems biased because the foreign representatives of the country are English, or at least have English accents...
Financially, it seems that that nice Alex Salmond was right all along about money being kept in the South-East, when it was Scotland's oil money.
Sjakihata
09-13-2005, 19:59
It will happen when I become Prim Minister...
as the man said, it will never happen
Big King Sanctaphrax
09-13-2005, 20:05
From an American perspective, the UK is an extremely bias union. Something should be shaken up so that all of the member "states" are treated equally.
Er, our whole country is substantially less than the size of some of your states. We don't need a federal system, we aren't large enough to warrant it.
The entirety of the UK is subsidised by the South and London, anyway. Seems a bit unfair to complain about an 'unfair union' on that basis.
Governance only seems biased because the foreign representatives of the country are English, or at least have English accents...
So why didn't Scotland get any of that oil, again?
Marcellus
09-13-2005, 20:42
From an American perspective, the UK is an extremely bias union. Something should be shaken up so that all of the member "states" are treated equally.
Rank Name Population (2001 census)
1 England 49,138,831
2 Scotland 5,062,011
3 Wales 2,903,085
4 Northern Ireland 1,685,267
United Kingdom 58,789,194
England forms 5/6th of the population of the UK, and most of its economic wealth. It's really not that surprising that politics in the UK seem 'biased' towards England. Actually, in some ways it's biased against England: we have no national assembly.
And BKS is right, London and the South East basically pays for all the rest of the UK (I seem to remember hearing that if the square mile [the very centre of London; the business area] were a separate country, then it would be the 14th richest on its own. In comparison the entirity of the UK is the fourth richest country in the world.)
Duke Malcolm
09-13-2005, 20:47
The point is that SNP have been saying that because of the oil money, Scotland would have been able to be an independent country quite comfortably, but there has always been doubt over this. This document released shows that the SNP were right, but the money has been mostly used in the South-East instead of Scotland as the SNP would have used it after getting Scotland independence. If this information was released 30 years ago, then we might have had devolution in 1979, and maybe even independence.
Right. What does that have to do with foreign representatives?
IF you ask me, there should be three COMPLETELY SEPERATE Countries (Ie. Britian should not control any part of Ireland). It should be a confederacy...
Big King Sanctaphrax
09-13-2005, 20:57
So why didn't Scotland get any of that oil, again?
The oil revenue went to the UK. Scotland is a prt of the UK.
Duke Malcolm
09-13-2005, 21:06
Right. What does that have to do with foreign representatives?
I was just saying why our government appears to be very biased to foreigners, even though a great many senior ministers are Scottish.
Reverend Joe
09-13-2005, 21:37
IF you ask me, there should be three COMPLETELY SEPERATE Countries (Ie. Britian should not control any part of Ireland). It should be a confederacy...
Too conservative. Unite Wales, Scotland, and divide England between them, and rename the new nation Romano-Britain, then give Ulster back to Ireland, and rename it Eire.
The Celts shall rise again! :charge:
All the oil would be gone now, and Scotland would have reverted back to being a poor haggis, whiskey and kilt exporting nation, only famous for Loch Ness.
All the oil would be gone now, and Scotland would have reverted back to being a poor haggis, whiskey and kilt exporting nation, only famous for Loch Ness.
And fightin' can't forget that.
Too conservative. Unite Wales, Scotland, and divide England between them, and rename the new nation Romano-Britain, then give Ulster back to Ireland, and rename it Eire.
The Celts shall rise again! :charge:
Too liberal. My idea :smash: yours.
:charge:
ShadesPanther
09-14-2005, 00:26
IF you ask me, there should be three COMPLETELY SEPERATE Countries (Ie. Britian should not control any part of Ireland). It should be a confederacy...
Maybe just maybe the people of Northern Ireland want to be part of the UK...
Strike For The South
09-14-2005, 00:41
Maybe just maybe the people of Northern Ireland want to be part of the UK...
LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ~;)
Zalmoxis
09-14-2005, 01:02
Scottland would be invaded by somebody if it would have.
Reverend Joe
09-14-2005, 01:07
Too liberal. My idea :smash: yours.
:charge:
Okay... I thought you were a celt... but apparently you are a TRAITOR!!! :furious3:
~D
Reverend Joe
09-14-2005, 01:10
Scottland would be invaded by somebody if it would have.
Come on- you know that modern-day arms are no match for claymores! At least, not according to Mel Gibson. Give it time- Braveheart 2 will be made:
"You can saturation-bomb my cities, but you can never..." you get the point.
I wonder if their currency would have been called kilts...
Incongruous
09-14-2005, 01:19
Ha ha!
I wander what the bloody BNP think about the SNP.
ICantSpellDawg
09-14-2005, 02:26
i am sorry - in the face of increased cultural relativism- the direction that i see the Europe moving in in the modern age is more integration, not secession into petty nation-states.
if that actually accurred you would hear of little towns wanting to seceed because they believe that they are being taken advantage of by other towns and this trend would continue downward to every individual man (who believed that he could gain more from a smaller union)
Papewaio
09-14-2005, 03:23
Er, our whole country is substantially less than the size of some of your states. We don't need a federal system, we aren't large enough to warrant it.
UK has a population 3 times that of Australia... at just over 20 million people,
But we can manage a Federal System... so I think that is a bogus answer that the UK is to small.
Too conservative. Unite Wales, Scotland, and divide England between them, and rename the new nation Romano-Britain, then give Ulster back to Ireland, and rename it Eire.
The Celts shall rise again! :charge:
You missed Wales. In any case, I'd prefer a pan-Celtic nation or union of nations. It would solve the issue of Northern Ireland, unless they'd all rather pretend to be Englishmen on religious grounds.
Brittany, Cornwall and Man can come too. Galatia still likes to think it's a Celtic nation, but I don't really know about that...
ICantSpellDawg
09-14-2005, 03:35
You missed Wales. In any case, I'd prefer a pan-Celtic nation or union of nations. It would solve the issue of Northern Ireland, unless they'd all rather pretend to be Englishmen on religious grounds.
Brittany, Cornwall and Man can come too. Galatia still likes to think it's a Celtic nation, but I don't really know about that...
what is a "celtic" nation?
most geneologists and genetic scientists believe that the actual "Celt" in the blood of people in the british isles is minimal to bred out. are you talking about language? It tends to be english except in tiny areas. Religion? incredible variation all over the "Celtic" world. would you include iceland in this union? they have higher levels of "Celtic" blood than the Scots.
unification based on blood is absurd
culture? not absurd, but the various celtic cultures have less in common than ireland and the philippines
what is a "celtic" nation?
most geneologists and genetic scientists believe that the actual "Celt" in the blood of people in the british isles is minimal to bred out. are you talking about language? It tends to be english except in tiny areas. Religion? incredible variation all over the "Celtic" world. would you include iceland in this union? they have higher levels of "Celtic" blood than the Scots.
unification based on blood is absurd
culture? not absurd, but the various celtic cultures have less in common than ireland and the philippines
Well, Celts were never considered a racial group. I don't know about Iceland, though. I've never heard anything like that.
The Philippines? That's just silly hyperbole.
ICantSpellDawg
09-14-2005, 03:47
Well, Celts were never considered a racial group. I don't know about Iceland, though. I've never heard anything like that.
The Philippines? That's just silly hyperbole.
why? Roman Catholic countries tend to have much more in common than non-Roman Catholic countries. Common religious values do much more to unify a people than language or blood. ideologies are both the most unifying and divisive things in the world. more than blood, most definitly
I would contest that. The whole idea was only a conjectural statement, however, and the bits about Brittanny, Cornwall and Man half tongue-in-cheek.
ICantSpellDawg
09-14-2005, 04:31
I would contest that. The whole idea was only a conjectural statement, however, and the bits about Brittanny, Cornwall and Man half tongue-in-cheek.
King Malcolm might not get the full effect of the punch-line. BTW - I said TEND to have more in common because countries with high levels of Roman Catholicism in the modern age TEND to have similar humanitarian concerns and spiritual superstition. Other Religions may not have the same character as the RC church because they lack the hierarchical and totalitarian nature of the RC church leadership. I probably shouldnt have included ALL religions in my previous statement.
King Malcolm might not get the full effect of the punch-line. BTW - I said TEND to have more in common because countries with high levels of Roman Catholicism in the modern age TEND to have similar humanitarian concerns and spiritual superstition. Other Religions may not have the same character as the RC church because they lack the hierarchical and totalitarian nature of the RC church leadership. I probably shouldnt have included ALL religions in my previous statement.
We'll have to ask him.
I think that Catholicism would be a boundary needed to be trounced in order to form a prosperous, post-modern society. Does it really seem that far-fetched to you?
Duke Malcolm
09-14-2005, 16:56
What punch line...
There are two groups who are campaigning for that idea, NeonGod, the Celtic League and the Celtic Congress.
I have to say, that I partly agree with both of you. The two types of Celts are different -- the Goidelic (Ireland, Isle of Man, bits of Scotland) and the Brythonic (Wales, Cornwall, Brittany). If they did join, however, I would assume the Celtic Church would be the sensible option. But there are few places which are "pure Celtic nations", probably only Ireland. Scotland is a mix of Celt, Angle, Saxon, Nordic and Pictish (whatever they may have been) The isle of Man is Celtic and Nordic. Because of these differences, TuffStuffMcGruff is probably right.
English assassin
09-14-2005, 18:00
Not this old clap trap again?
He added that it showed how much Scotland would have benefited from independence and oil
This is absolutely typical of a nationalist isn't it? Its MINE, this oil, all MINE, you can't have it. The voice of the kid who took his football home from the playground turned into a political party. Its pathetic. Wee Scotland? Wee bloody minds, the SNP, that's a fact. Bunch of small town bigots with chips on their shoulders IMHO.
If we discovered the worlds biggest diamond mine in Norfolk this same joker would be first in line holding his hand out for "fair shares for Scotland". They wouldn't be England's diamonds, you bet, they would be the UK's.
Last time we did this I linked the pages on the Office for National Statistics website that show that Scotland receives FAR more money per capita than England, and pays less tax. I can't be bothered to do it again. They are there, just find them. I'm sure Mr Lying McBastard of the SNP is familiar with the figures, which is no doubt why he choses to try to make political capital out of something 30 years old.
From an American perspective, the UK is an extremely bias union. Something should be shaken up so that all of the member "states" are treated equally.
God help us. We pay the Scots more, we give them a Parliament, we let their MPs vote on things that ONLY AFFECT ENGLAND (and wales), they certainly don't seem to be lacking any national identity I can see, the Prime minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer are actually Scots, if this is extreme bias god knows what equality will look like.
Duke Malcolm
09-14-2005, 18:09
The Speaker of the House of Commons and the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Transport are also all Scottish.
It is silly that Mr Blair gave Scotland devolution, but didn't do anything about England. Although, if the ConservaTories get in and let only English MPs vote on matters which only affect England, then that will give the SNP fuel for their cause, saying that Scottish MPs are a second-class MP, and aren't allowed to vote on all the votes in parliament. In think it should be a case of devolution for all or no devolution. Mr Blair was too sly, knowing that he would have to keep Scottish MPs for his nice majority in the parliament.
However, the English shouldn't complain, since we had been under the boot of English MPs for the past 290 years.
ShadesWolf
09-14-2005, 18:25
You should break of from GB if they are only taking advantage of you.Then you guys can join in a nordic union with the scandinavian Countries
My idea of heaven. Get rid of all those Celts ~;)
England would be returned to the Anglo-saxons and the Tories would win an election.
No Scots or Welsh to prop up the Labour party.
English Taxation could be spent on England ~:)
My idea of heaven. Get rid of all those Celts ~;)
England would be returned to the Anglo-saxons and the Tories would win an election.
No Scots or Welsh to prop up the Labour party.
English Taxation could be spent on England ~:)
I'm sure Wales wouldn't agree to this...
Although we could give Cornwall independence too as they are Celts as well. Like to see if they have a a surplus haha.
Duke Malcolm
09-14-2005, 18:39
I'm sure all Celt-ness of Cornwall has been bled out over the past thousand years or so that they have not been a celtic nation
ShadesWolf
09-14-2005, 18:39
What a great idea. That would remove 6 Liberal seats.
I like your thinking ~:cheers:
Louis VI the Fat
09-14-2005, 23:51
Not this old clap trap again?
This is absolutely typical of a nationalist isn't it? Its MINE, this oil, all MINE, you can't have it. The voice of the kid who took his football home from the playground turned into a political party. Its pathetic. Wee Scotland? Wee bloody minds, the SNP, that's a fact.Not minding my own business across the Channel whatsover, I agree with this.
What if the Orkneys were to become indepent from Scotland in their turn? Wouldn't all of 'Scotland's' oil then suddenly turn out to be really theirs? Blimey, those few thousand shepherds could live like oil sheiks if we were to follow this line of reasoning.
IMO, the Act of Union has benefited Scotland to no end for three centuries now, what with them having full access to all the wealth and priviliges that Britain's empire has brought with it...
Marcellus
09-15-2005, 00:05
UK has a population 3 times that of Australia... at just over 20 million people,
But we can manage a Federal System... so I think that is a bogus answer that the UK is to small.
I think that BKS was talking about geographical size rather than population size...
I don't see a need for a federal system. I feel British, not English (though that may be because I'm half Welsh...). Devolve some powers to national authoities, but keep the country of Britain. Well, that's my opinion, at least.
Alexander the Pretty Good
09-15-2005, 00:36
Scotland?
Freeeeeeeeedom!!!
Sorry, just passing through. :book:
Papewaio
09-15-2005, 01:58
I think that BKS was talking about geographical size rather than population size...
I don't see a need for a federal system. I feel British, not English (though that may be because I'm half Welsh...). Devolve some powers to national authoities, but keep the country of Britain. Well, that's my opinion, at least.
A federal system would allow the individual states to vote for state matters and the federal level to deal with national levels.
It is a defacto federal system with Scotlands local parliament, and as it is not evenly applied to all within the UK you have an unequal situation.
Equity is lacking in the system.
Ja'chyra
09-15-2005, 10:52
As some of you know I'm Scottish and I don't think we should be totally independant from Britain, I don't think it would be workable for anyone.
But this:
We pay the Scots more, we give them a Parliament, we let their MPs vote on things that ONLY AFFECT ENGLAND (and wales),
Is not only insulting, it's pish, as they say in Glasgow. You (England) didn't give us anything apart from the poll tax, we (Britain) agreed these things.
Anyway, if the Scottish people really wanted to be independant then they would be, do you honestly think that England could get away with sending in troops? Not in this day and age, and anyway, we could just ask our American friends to supply money and arms and fight a guerilla war, no wait that would be terrorism ~;) .
English assassin
09-15-2005, 11:09
Is not only insulting, it's pish, as they say in Glasgow. You (England) didn't give us anything apart from the poll tax, we (Britain) agreed these things
And where in my post did it say we= England rather than we= the UK? And as for the poll tax, (which BTW we (England) got too in the end) I'll see you and raise a foundation hospital.
Anyway, if the Scottish people really wanted to be independant then they would be, do you honestly think that England could get away with sending in troops?
Eh? Where did that come from? Its not 1745 any more. Certainly not, if Scotland wants to go, go. Just take a fair share of the national debt, public sector pension liability and so on with you, and good luck.
Ja'chyra
09-15-2005, 11:54
The "We pay the Scots more" implies that Scotland has nothing to do with the decision, but fair enough I'll let it go.
The independance part started as saying that we don't really want independance and finished as a wee dig at the US, couldn't help myself ~;) ~:grouphug:
ShadesPanther
09-15-2005, 16:13
we could just ask our American friends to supply money and arms and fight a guerilla war, no wait that would be terrorism ~;) .
Not if the Americans support it!
Seamus Fermanagh
09-15-2005, 16:29
I've always wondered....
If there were a plebescite, like they do every so often in Quebec and in Puerto Rico, what kind of percentages there would be for the 6 counties to be:
Part of the UK, Part of the Republic, Fully Independent?
Thoughts?
Seamus
English assassin
09-15-2005, 16:36
0% for full independence anyway.
A majority would be for remaining in the UK, although if they carry on as they are a more interesting questioin will be whether a majority of the UK as whole really wants the bother any more...
A good article in todays Grauniad:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Northern_Ireland/Story/0,2763,1570332,00.html
ShadesPanther
09-15-2005, 17:27
The latest census would give you an idea of what they want.
As for full independance, no there is no way Northern Ireland could support itself
ShadesWolf
09-15-2005, 20:05
And as for the poll tax
Ive said this before and I will say it again.
I had no problem with the Poll tax. I believe it was a more fairer tax than we currently have.
But of course the Left got a few thousand nutters to march on London and for some reason the government backed down ~:eek:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.